Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!rex!ames!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hp-pcd!hpcvra!frankw
From: frankw@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Frank Wales)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Why "worm" instead of "germ"
Message-ID: <17920001@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM>
Date: 16 Jan 90 23:42:09 GMT
References: <77443@looking.on.ca>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA
Lines: 19

In some article, Brad Templeton (brad@looking.on.ca) writes:
>While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus" by grafting
>itself into another program, why the term "worm?"
>
>Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."  So why "worm?"

Because when you steal terminology from another field, you run the
risk of choosing an inappropriate metaphor or analogy.  How many
people know the differences between bacteria, viruses and worms, for
example?  And does the metaphor hold sufficiently that the differences
matter in the "new" context?

And how many people care about the accurate use of the terminology
they *do* understand?  What about kilobytes versus Kbytes?  Centigrade
degrees vs degrees Centigrade vs Kelvins?  ROM memory and LCD displays and
software programs?  But this is the start of another argument.
--
Frank Wales, Guest of HP Corvallis,  [frank@zen.co.uk || frankw@hpcvra.hp.com]
Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., LEEDS, England, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217